Liquid Mix - get "real" hardware names on your emulation menu

[terminal3]

Hello everyone...

A user over at GS (quite some time ago, but the tip still works) has come up with a list of the actual hardware names for the modelled emus in the Liquid Mix. These are saved as "snapshots" - so all you need to do is put the snapshots in the correct folder, and click LOAD COMP or LOAD EQ and you will see a list of the modelled emulations. No more having to work out what 'BritDesk' and 'Trany' etc. represent, it's all laid out for you, so if you're hankering for an SSL EQ, that's what you'll load.

The files to download are attached to the post with the instructions here. It's a very simple process and will make your LM operation that much easier/cooler!!

Enjoy!

[sureno]

OMG your a star T3 iv been looking for this for AGES!!!! all i need now is a liquid mix

[tehlord]

Out of interest how does liquid mix stack up against the likes of UAD and TC assuming I'm not really fussed about expansion or reverb emulations etc?

[myeymse]

I only know UAD, I own 4 1's and a UAD2 quad.

If you look for "analouge character" - UAD does not even come close.

Liquid mix is WAAAYY better in that regard.

After hearing LM I regret the $4k+ I've spent on UA.

Problem with LM is that its so cheap no pro's can take it really serious.

to me it was something I've been looking for since I sold my SSL & Trident desks and started to mix ITB.

regards

[waxxy]

lots of pros use liquid mix just read mags like future music/compputer music all the top producers use them i just need to get the money to buy one myself

[JAYDMF]

Originally Posted by waxxy

lots of pros use liquid mix just read mags like future music/compputer music all the top producers use them i just need to get the money to buy one myself

Ive been thinking that for about 8 months and finally managed to order one this month. Have you taken the liquid mix test on the focusrite site yet ? It actually surprised me how many times i thought the focusrite was the real jobby, not that i know most of the real units by ear but.

[Dave Boulden]

Finally got round to looking at installing Peeder's snapshots, but it looks like the ZIP file for v2.2 is corrupted. Anyone got a good copy of Peeder's snapshots for v2.2?

[myeymse]

[QUOTE=waxxy;38300]lots of pros use liquid mix just read mags like future music/compputer music all the top producers use them i just need to get the money to buy one myself [/QUOTE]


I just guess the pro's I know are too busy to read those mags

But kidding aside, here in Norway there's a lot fewer units sold than their quality should suggest (I know from talking to the importer - they initially believed it would "take off", but it didnt)
UAD however.. Has sold masses.
Totally unfair. Everything sounds a LOT better after replacing all uad's for my current mixes. Besides my Pc show a 20% better performance if there's no UAD present in project.
I've always been ambivalent about the UAD, but have sort of hanged around until i discovered the LM.
Finally gotten the warm mid's and the smooth top end back. Not the "grey mud" of the UAD

Only problem is that 32 channels is not enough - and their driver does currently NOT support more than one LM at a time. Bummer. I would buy 3 more in a heartbeat (need a duplicate studio for assistant ) if focusrite rewrote drivers to accept two or more LM's.

Hopefully I will not be the only one that requests such a driver update.

[Dave Boulden]

Besides the track count issue, I'd really like to see the LM chipset mounted on a PCIe card for proper internal PCI bus bandwidth (as opposed to the current Firewire streaming) for better channel count and latency, but still have the external box but with the display (bigger or better resolution would be nice!) and controls only... perhaps connected by USB2.

[JAYDMF]

Well just got mine the other day and i only have good things to say, the models are sweet (although i cant obviously reference them against the originals) looking forward to getting down and making some tunes with this bad boy in a couple of weeks when the roof is done

[cane creek]

Originally Posted by myeymse

I only know UAD, I own 4 1's and a UAD2 quad.

If you look for "analouge character" - UAD does not even come close.

Liquid mix is WAAAYY better in that regard.

After hearing LM I regret the $4k+ I've spent on UA.

Problem with LM is that its so cheap no pro's can take it really serious.

to me it was something I've been looking for since I sold my SSL & Trident desks and started to mix ITB.

regards

Wouldn't you get similar results using Nebula rather than Liquid mix ? and in that way you'd get rid of the firwire dongle and possible bandwidth issues.

Id like to try Nebula just waiting for a Audio units mac version.

[myeymse]

[QUOTE=cane creek;39115]Wouldn't you get similar results using Nebula rather than Liquid mix ? and in that way you'd get rid of the firwire dongle and possible bandwidth issues.
[/QUOTE]

Never tried it - but it looks like a different thing to me (without looking real close).
LM is "samples" of the real boxes, and those are well known cause they worked (very) well for certain tasks in all those years. Chances are they will work for you too.
Will give Nebula a spin though - thanks for the tip.

[Dave Boulden]

Originally Posted by myeymse

LM is "samples" of the real boxes, and those are well known cause they worked (very) well for certain tasks in all those years.

Not strictly true. The Nebula plugin is actually quite similar to the LiquidMix. Although the LiquidMix does employ impulse samples of the gear being modeled, it goes much further than a standard convolution product by also allowing you to alter the characteristics of the impulse (in effect) thus making it somewhat akin to a model that is driven by impulse responses. I do believe, in fact, that the system in the LiquidMix (originally by Sintefex) is actually more or less a subset of the Volterra Kernel Series processing that the Nebula product employs. Off the top of my head and from my limited knowledge of the subject, the Volterra Kernel Series theorem is used to model non-linear processes, possibly why it was chosen to model the non-linear characteristics within EQ and compression processing.

I'm sure someone with some better first-hand knowledge (EdRyan?) may well be able to explain it better!

[myeymse]

[QUOTE=Dave Boulden;39147]The Nebula plugin is actually quite similar to the LiquidMix. Although the LiquidMix does employ impulse samples of the gear being modeled, it goes much further than a standard convolution product by also allowing you to alter the characteristics of the impulse (in effect) thus making it somewhat akin to a model that is driven by impulse responses.
---------
I'm sure someone with some better first-hand knowledge (EdRyan?) may well be able to explain it better![/QUOTE]
Hearing is believing..
I'm shure that f.example the UAD guys can come up with pretty convincing stuff about why their cards/plugs are great. But IMO they dont stand a chance in an actual listening/comparison test.
I still have a Sintefex FX8000 that can be used for making samples of your own gear. Sounded like a good idea at the time I bought it (waaay too expensive ) but I've never used it for that once. Have some good samples though, but nowadays only used as an extra two channels of AD & possibly some compression when recording full bands.

Will give the Nebula a test one of these days..

[terminal3]

Here's another very useful resource for this clever little box - a pictorial guide (with descriptions) of the emulations...

With thanks to user Level10Pro over at Gearslutz, he put this together...

https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...3-ca5577b0f711

(original thread where I found this is here.